Yolo supervisors question Benicia on oil by rail project

The potential for oil spills, fires and noise are among Yolo County's concerns regarding the city of Benicia's oil by rail project.

County staff reviewed a draft of an environmental impact report about the project at the Valero Oil Refinery, which would result in the daily delivery of oil by rail to the Bay Area refinery. Rail shipments will pass through Yolo, Sacramento, Solano, Placer and Contra Costa counties.

In Yolo County, the shipments are expected to pass through West Sacramento and Davis. Protesters picketed the plan at the Davis railroad station over recent week.

In a letter to be sent this week, county officials outlined concerns about the environmental report, which "pays little attention to the potential upstream effects of increased oil by rail shipments."

If the project is approved, two 50-car trains loaded with 70,000 barrels of crude would travel along a predetermined route from Roseville to Benicia each day, while two empty trains travel the same route back.

Benicia's environmental report concludes the transportation of oil by rail poses a "less than significant hazard to upstream communities." This finding was based on an analysis showing that an oil spill might happen only once every 111 years between Roseville and Benicia.

The county letter, approved Tuesday by Yolo Supervisors, calls the analysis inaccurate and irrelevant because it fails to explore the potential magnitude of oil spills in neighboring communities.

"I was surprised that the project wanted to limit the environmental assessment to the immediate area and not consider areas that are affected like Yolo County," said Supervisor Jim Provenza Tuesday.

Benicia's assessment focuses largely on the area around the Valero refinery, and does not provide a thorough analysis of the potential effects on other communities.

"A catastrophic explosion and spill in a populated area is different from a 100-gallon spill in a shipyard that is quickly cleaned up," the county letter states. "Without considering the second half of the risk analysis, the (report) cannot conclude that the risk of a spill is insignificant."

The Yolo letter states the analysis fails to take into consideration effects on rail traffic and emergency responsiveness in communities outside of Benicia.

"Many of these impacts are minimized by the timing of the trains," the letter states. "The (report) does not specify whether the same conditions will be true in the other communities along the trains' route and whether the trains' cumulative impact will be significant."

Provenza said overall the county response was well-written, while Supervisor Matt Rexroad questioned if the county should be involved at all.

"Are we really having an impact here in terms of shaken policy?" he said. "We end up in this incredibly insufficient position where we're halfway in between, and I question that."

Supervisor Don Saylor disagreed with Rexroad's rationale.

"This is not a fight that is being picked, it is a matter of a fight that is being brought to us," Saylor said. "We're talking about safety for communities in the Sacramento region for a potential risk that is fairly significant. It would be unconscionable not to comment."

After further discussion, the board was split, 3-2, on sending the letter, with Rexroad and Supervisor Duane Chamberlain dissenting.